<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;makeup&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:18:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Makeup Companies Run Into Legal Trouble For Too Much Photoshopping... And Not Enough Photoshopping</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11441915263/makeup-companies-run-into-legal-trouble-too-much-photoshopping-not-enough-photoshopping.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11441915263/makeup-companies-run-into-legal-trouble-too-much-photoshopping-not-enough-photoshopping.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a story making the rounds about how the UK Advertising Standards Authority is <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/07/julia-roberts-christie-turlington-ads-banned-in-britain-due-to-excessive-airbrushing.html" target="_blank">banning certain cosmetics advertisements</a> including Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, because the images are <i>way</i> too Photoshopped.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/3caTD.jpg"  />
</center>
The ASA says that ads can't mislead, and the makeup company (in this case L'Oreal) did not provide enough evidence that the digital alterations did not, in fact, mislead.
<br><br>
Now, this story was interesting on its own, but what made it even more interesting is that another makeup firm, Estee Lauder, seems to be in a legal dispute, for the exact opposite reason.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=imafish">Ima Fish</a> recently alerted us to the news that model Caroline Louise Forsling had <a href="http://www.beautyhigh.com/body/skin-care/13278/model-is-suing-over-not-being-photoshopped-in-ad" target="_blank">sued the company for the following advertisement</a>:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/H5DP8.jpg" width=464 />
</center>
She claims that the photo was just a "test shot" before any makeup was applied, and was for a different product.  She claims that the showing of her untouched-up face on the left has 'irreparably' damaged her career.  Of course, in suing over this, she effectively admits that the image on the left is the untouched-up image.  She could have just as easily told people that the right-hand side was the "real" image, and the left-hand one was digitally altered, and gotten on with her life.
<br><br>
Either way, it should be noted that in both of these stories, they're about supposed "anti-aging" products, and I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that digitally altering images is how such products are advertised, rather than showing any <i>actual</i> before and after shots, because I imagine "real results" are likely to vary from what's seen in any of these ads.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11441915263/makeup-companies-run-into-legal-trouble-too-much-photoshopping-not-enough-photoshopping.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11441915263/makeup-companies-run-into-legal-trouble-too-much-photoshopping-not-enough-photoshopping.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/11441915263/makeup-companies-run-into-legal-trouble-too-much-photoshopping-not-enough-photoshopping.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>damned-if-you-do,-damned-if-you-don't</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110726/11441915263</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>